“The recent ruling of the German Constitutional Court put under the spotlight two issues of the European Union: the Euro system and the European legal system” reads the statement of the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen on decision of the German Constitutional Court.
“We take good note of the clear statement of the European Court of Justice of 8 May.
“In the same vein, the European Commission upholds three basic principles: that the Union’s monetary policy is a matter of exclusive competence; that EU law has primacy over national law and that rulings of the European Court of Justice are binding on all national courts.
“The final word on EU law is always spoken in Luxembourg. Nowhere else.
“The European Commission’s task is to safeguard the proper functioning of the Euro system and the Union’s legal system.
“We are now analysing the ruling of the German Constitutional Court in detail. And we will look into possible next steps, which may include the option of infringement proceedings.
“The European Union is a community of values and of law, which must be upheld and defended at all times. This is what keeps us together. This is what we stand for”.
The European Court of Justice found itself in utmost controvericial situation in its 68-year history created by the German judges.
In a long-awaited ruling on the European Central Bank’s quantitative easing program, Germany’s constitutional court in Karlsruhe accused the EU Court of Justice of overstepping its powers when it backed the ECB’s controversial policy.
The EU chief spokesperson declined an immediate reaciton to this particular issue, promisiing to look into it in-depth in cominng days. However he underlined that European Union law has a primacy over the German constitution and the rulings of the European Union’s top court are binding for the German constitutional court.
Reminindg of the EU general legal framework has been the Commission responce to a German constitutional court ruling that the Bundesbank must stop buying government bonds under the European Central Bank’s long-running stimulus scheme within three months unless the ECB can prove the purchases are needed.
The German ruling has been announced in contradiction to the EU’s top court ruling in 2018 that the ECB bond buying programme was in line with EU law.
“Notwithstanding the analysis of the detail of the German Constitutional Court decision today We reaffirm the primacy of the EU law, and the fact that the rulings of the European Court of Justice are binding on all national courts,” the Commission spokesperson said.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the UK has right to cancel their request to withdraw form the European Union (EU) under Article 50 procedure, commonly known as Brexit, without asking for permission from other member states of the bloc.
The decision followed the opinion given last week in a less official and not binding procedure to the court from a top European law expert.
The case was brought by a group of Scottish lawmakers who sought a legal ruling on the UK request under Article 50 to leave the EU could be unilaterally revoked before the deadline of March 29, 2019.
In his comment the leader of the UKIP Gerard Batten (MEP) said that if the House of Commons ends Brexit, it will be an ‘act of betrayal unique in our history”.
The full text of the ruling is published on the European Court of Justice site:
The European Union’s top legal adviser said the UK had the right to withdraw its Article 50 notice, and cancel Brexit plans, opening a new dimension for Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans to leave the EU, which could be rejected in Westminster next week.
The advice from the European Court of Justice’s advocate general encouraged supporters of EU membership in Britain’s parliament on the first of five days of debate on May’s plans to keep close economic ties after leaving the bloc end March.
May is confronted with a wave of criticism from the entire political spectrum, including members of her own party for the deal her government has offered to Britons. She has to enter a battle with her critics to secure parliament’s approval in the key vote on December 11 after her plan had negative response among Brexit supporters and Remainers.
Janice ATKINSON, OPINION
The first stage talks on Brexit concluded with Theresa May caving in to Brussels’ demands: more ECJ rule (for at least eight years), complying with single market and customs union rules in a transition period of somewhere in the region of two years. Careful not to give an end date for the UK to end the transition period, this means the UK has uncontrolled immigration for at least another two years and the unacceptable ECJ having judicial supremacy over British courts. This is not what the UK voted for.
Back in Blighty, Mrs May seems to have grown bolder, although still not committing to an end date for transition, she stated yesterday in Parliament that we would be leaving the single market and customs union during the transition. The trouble is, we just don’t believe her and neither do the Brexiteers in her cabinet.
I was in Washington when President Trump announced that the US would be moving its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. I really do not understand the uproar, from the UN, the EU and the UK, surely he’s just implementing what other presidents have been saying would happen for the past twenty years, as in his election promises?
But that’s the problem, he’s delivering on jobs, the wall (nearly), economic growth and the travel ban. That’s what the other politicians particularly dislike: delivering your promises to the electorate.
The UK will outline its plans to abandon the “direct jurisdiction” of the European Court of Justice after Brexit, one of Prime Minister Theresa May’s main aims in talks to unravel 40 years of EU membership.
The plans will be laid out in documents Britain has published this month as it attempts to enhance the negotiations with the European Union forward.
The government will try to show little compromise in what it calls a paper to “reinforce the message that after Brexit, the UK will take back control of its laws”.
But in qualifying her language by using the word “direct” before jurisdiction, opposition lawmakers said May had crossed her own “red line” on taking back control, by accepting the court would have influence over British law.
The UK will not accept the “one-sided” powers of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as part of a deal to leave the European Union, Brexit minister David Davis said, while criticizing an “ideological obsession” with the ECJ decision in Brussels.
The EU27 plan for negotiating Brexit was put forward by the chief negotiator Michel Barnier who approved of starting in June.
“The deal we reach will need independent and impartial enforcement,” Davis said in a statement in response to the approval of the negotiating directives.
“But an ideological obsession in Brussels with one-sided jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice – in the UK, after we have left the EU – is not acceptable and will not work.”
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg decided in favor of a Belgian firm which had a rule barring employees who dealt with customers from wearing visible religious and political symbols may not have discriminated against a receptionist dismissed for wearing a headscarf.
From now onwards the compainies in the EU got a green light on demotivating their staff from wearing Islamic headscarves and other visible religious or political symbols under certain conditions, the European Union’s top court ruled to big relief of those standing for secular societies.
The Open Society Justice Initiative, a group footed by the philanthropist George Soros, said the ruling weakens the guarantee of equality” established by the EU non-discrimination laws.”